FX-8320 w/ GTX970 2-way SLI. Will there be bottlenecks?

[nokturrduk84]

Ya i am about to build a new rig soon about to dump about 3000-4000 dollars in my new build i am only waiting to see anything new from AMD

You will have to wait a lot & by the way, Intel will be very far away by that time.

[FlashingKool_Z]

Why are you buying 970s instead of 780 Tis if they're the same price? Isn't the 780 Ti still better in terms of pure performance? 

[Toadboy]

You will have to wait a lot & by the way, Intel will be very far away by that time.

I am kinda leaning towards a intel how ever i'd just like to wait a little and see where things are at 

 

because i am still a AMD fan

[Suika]

GPU load being high (90%+) while CPU load is not maxed (AKA <100%) is not a bottleneck thats how normal CPU's work if you did not know.

I am not going to respond to this argument any longer as I have said my part.

If the GPU(s) aren't at 99-100%, it's a bottleneck.

Just because the CPU isn't at 100% doesn't completely mean it isn't bottlenecking. If a game is only using 4 cores, and the FX-8350 only shows 50 something percent total usage, does that mean there's a bottleneck? By every means, yes. Perhaps another task could use the remaining cores, but the original game cannot and will not, and you have a bottleneck.

Skyrim, for example, uses 4 and only 4 cores. When I had it and about 100 graphical and AI mods, my GTX 780 handled it all very well, running between 40-60FPS in the wild and through small battles. My FX-8350, however, threw a fit and dropped the FPS average to 10-20FPS every time I entered a town or got into any other AI heavy area. It was a very noticeable bottleneck to a single GTX 780, and also exists on any other game that becomes CPU heavy and utilizes no more than 4 cores.

[Altecice]

If the GPU(s) aren't at 99-100%, it's a bottleneck.

Just because the CPU isn't at 100% doesn't completely mean it isn't bottlenecking. If a game is only using 4 cores, and the FX-8350 only shows 50 something percent total usage, does that mean there's a bottleneck? By every means, yes. Perhaps another task could use the remaining cores, but the original game cannot and will not, and you have a bottleneck.

Skyrim, for example, uses 4 and only 4 cores. When I had it and about 100 graphical and AI mods, my GTX 780 handled it all very well, running between 40-60FPS in the wild and through small battles. My FX-8350, however, threw a fit and dropped the FPS average to 10-20FPS every time I entered a town or got into any other AI heavy area. It was a very noticeable bottleneck to a single GTX 780, and also exists on any other game that becomes CPU heavy and utilizes no more than 4 cores.

 

Yup I agree with you there. Perhaps I should have said GPU's at maximum use while CPU was not.... Skyrim runs like a bag of crap on AMD and always has done . Its more the games engines fault not being able to use anymore than 2 of the 8350 cores. vs 4HT threads of Intel.

[vern021]

What the fuck are you talking about mate?

 

First, where did you see Windows 7? And even if he had 7 so what? If 7 doesn't work better with FX CPUs, everyone should uninstall it & go with 8?

Second so what, that 3DMark Vantage supports only 4 cores? Lots of modern games still support only 4 cores except 2-3 games. So exactly 3DMark Vantage is a good benchmark for testing.

Third, you say i3 doesn't touch FX CPUs? Here, take a good look: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Fourth, you want me to go away & run Cinebench which supports 8 cores? I can easily do it & be sure my i7 gonna destroy your FX in that benchmark. If you really want me, I can do that for you.

 

Here, my 3770k score:

 

 

Now show me your FX score plz. And if this challenge wasn't meant for me, but i3/i5. Yes, in rendering FX may have better scores, but again i7 destroys it,& by the way OP wants his system for gaming, not for rendering. I already told him, if he wants rendering & video editing, he should go with i7, which is still better deal than AMD.

He has a point tho. Why do you guys recommend i7 when I'm only gaming? FFS I'm just a student and an i7 here nearly cost the same as the 970 -.-

[Sintezza]

It's in my signature. Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 rev 4.0

Well it is intel vs. amd. what else?

 

All posts have very intriguing opinions and every post has a good point. Maybe as this topic goes on, more people will give opinions. Right now I'm more into the AMD side since I already have it right +now. Wouldn't mind to upgrade to broadwell or skylake in the future tho.

 

 

Do note that I'm upgrading and not buying a whole build atm.

 

Well why not just buying your desired 970 sli then?

 

i mean, if you where allready planning to upgrade in stages, to maybe an intel setup.

Why then dont just buy 2 970´s right now, and just look how it performs.

Like i posted earlier, i would not be supriced if they would perform verywell on a little slower cpu.

Because the GM204 chip is just an optimized GTX770, with some compression magic, and MFAA magic. and faster clockspeeds.

 

If you are getting heavly bottlenecked, then you can allways upgrade to intel, which was probably your main goal anyway?

 

i mean you currently have your FX8320 setup, so why not try it?

 

Or just buy a single GTX970 first, and check if you notice any bottleneck.

[Cloud92]

I have the 8320. And I overclocked it up to 4.7 (on a combination of multiplier and fsb since multiplier only seems unstable) but I like to keep it at 4.4ghz(only multiplier) stock voltage 1.320 . So far in well over a year since I bought it has NEVER let me down,it worked perfectly on every single game so far,even on the very CPU intensive games,it does not bottleneck whatsoever. I love it and I'd never look back. It's the best price/performance chip right now if you want to have a PC that you can game on,render,stream. It's good in all the areas.

[Faa]

Because basically Intel have been far too precious with their multi core technology. Hyperthreading is not a base standard and is reserved for more expensive CPUs. By doing this you create fragments in the market and the developers will always code for the "Joe Public" processors, not the hideously expensive ones.

Hyperthreading doesn't require any special support.

 

 

Secondly, Windows 7 does not work properly with the FX range of processors. And I mean *all* FX processors. It simply does not understand more than 4 cores. Core parking issues, cores sitting idle.... Any way, I'll leave Microsoft to explain, with patches that did not work properly and were promptly removed, leaving the FX still fucked in Windows 7.

That's fixed so your point is invalid. 

 

 

So first and most foremost, Windows 8 is essential given it actually understands the FX CPU.

This explanation sounds even cheaper than the CPU itself.

 

 

I'll say it again. Go away and run Cinebench R15, 3Dmark Firestrike and anything that supports 8 cores and then come back to me with your scores.

Come back with gaming benchmarks, where AMD does a lot better than modern i5/i7's in a particular game according to multiple sources.

 

 

Then moving on. Judging a CPU because the software you are running on it is shit is absolutely stupid. You wouldn't buy a fucking car, remove three of the wheels and then rate its 0-60 would you? so why are you babbling on about software that doesn't work properly on FX CPUs because it only supports two cores.

Every wheel on a car is doing the same thing, which isn't the case with cores. Flawed logic. You can't multithread a single instruction. Games still have one main thread, with the rest following it, once the main thread is massively massively overloaded it doesn't matter how many threads the game "supports" because they all will be waiting for the main thread to finish which is why you see'll much better minimums with more single core performance than with more cores when you're playing with 50K people in a 25m² area because at that point the main thread is overloaded. Crysis 3 "supports" 8 cores.. Archeage uses Crysis 3 engine;

There's NO way a game will ever magically saturate 8 cores that 8350's somehow perform better than i5's. Like you said you don't buy an 8 core when no game "supports" it, you must be a salesmen. What are people supposed to do with 8 cores when no game "supports" half of its cores which also has worse IPC than 10 years old architecture Conroe? 

All cpu's at 2.8GHz;

Get real, Haswell will provide up to 100% more FPS making it just the better price/gaming performance CPU. The 8350 is outdated, it only keeps up if the game is heavily multithreaded or GPU bound, once you have a lightthreaded CPU limited game it falls extremely hard behind. Its performance is extremely inconsistent making it just the worst CPU you can buy for its price from a gaming standpoint, let alone what power it consumes completely limiting the overclock potential on cheaper boards requiring better cooling/airflow and sacrificing noise.

[Suika]

He has a point tho. Why do you guys recommend i7 when I'm only gaming? FFS I'm just a student and an i7 here nearly cost the same as the 970 -.-

He's not recommending an i7 per say, but making the point that a quad core is more powerful than AMD's octa core.

An i5-4690k performs as well, if not better than an i7-4790k in games. They're similar processors with the key difference being hyper threading.

[vern021]

Well why not just buying your desired 970 sli then?

 

i mean, if you where allready planning to upgrade in stages, to maybe an intel setup.

Why then dont just buy 2 970´s right now, and just look how it performs.

Like i posted earlier, i would not be supriced if they would perform verywell on a little slower cpu.

Because the GM204 chip is just an optimized GTX770, with some compression magic, and MFAA magic. and faster clockspeeds.

 

If you are getting heavly bottlenecked, then you can allways upgrade to intel, which was probably your main goal anyway?

 

i mean you currently have your FX8320 setup, so why not try it?

 

Or just buy a single GTX970 first, and check if you notice any bottleneck.

I think I'll take your advice. I forgot that GK110 is more complicated than GM204. Perhaps we can't see massive fps drops with it. I would appreciate if there's a benchmark test about it. This topic is pretty hot right now(already in the front page). Maybe @LinusTech @Slick @nicklmg might want to take a look at it?

[Cloud92]

Just get a i5 and try to aim for a 4.5ghz OC if you really do want to be on the safe side. I doubt that you'll find a game where the 8320 with two 970 won't perform great,it's not bad,it's just not AS good as intel. It's a little fps slower,which you won't even feel since it will hit 60+ fps on every single game without a sweat.

[Demonking]

GPU load being high (90%+) while CPU load is not maxed (AKA <100%) is not a bottleneck thats how normal CPU's work if you did not know.

I am not going to respond to this argument any longer as I have said my part.

yup you did my 4670K sits close to 99% while my GPU 760 sits at 98 to 97 maxed BF4 

[nino kcp]

Context Reply body for refrow

[Faceman]

@ALXAndy

You just got @Faa-ked up.*

 

*copyright.

[vern021]

Context Reply body for refrow

 

 

You just got Faa-ked up.*

 

*copyright.

wut?  :blink:

[ALXAndy]

@ALXAndy

You just got @Faa-ked up.*

 

*copyright.

 

Oh you mean that cock I've got on ignore?

[ALXAndy]

What the fuck are you talking about mate?

 

First, where did you see Windows 7? And even if he had 7 so what? If 7 doesn't work better with FX CPUs, everyone should uninstall it & go with 8?

Second so what, that 3DMark Vantage supports only 4 cores? Lots of modern games still support only 4 cores except 2-3 games. So exactly 3DMark Vantage is a good benchmark for testing.

Third, you say i3 doesn't touch FX CPUs? Here, take a good look: http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/core-i3-4340-4330-4130_5.html#sect0

Fourth, you want me to go away & run Cinebench which supports 8 cores? I can easily do it & be sure my i7 gonna destroy your FX in that benchmark. If you really want me, I can do that for you.

 

Here, my 3770k score:

 

Now show me your FX score plz. And if this challenge wasn't meant for me, but i3/i5. Yes, in rendering FX may have better scores, but again i7 destroys it,& by the way OP wants his system for gaming, not for rendering. I already told him, if he wants rendering & video editing, he should go with i7, which is still better deal than AMD.

 

8320 @ 5ghz.

 

 

So that's less than 10% slower than your I7. However, it cost over 50% less to buy. Now let's look at a 2700k @ 4.7ghz.

 

 

So I would like to see any one here explain to me why the I5 is ever faster than the FX 8, given it mixes it with the earlier I7s.

 

I saw Windows 7 because the likelihood is that you are using Windows 7 (or it was used) when those benchmarks were ran. As for how many cores it supports? see my analogy. You would not run a 0-60 test on a car with three wheels removed. If you want to compare CPUs you must do it properly, where both are fully supported. Otherwise it's cherry picking which is cheating.

 

As for "destroy"? less than 10% between a CPU that costs around £100, compared to the one you paid £280+ for. I don't see that as destroying in any shape or form, so you should watch your words in future. If I go harder on my FSB and lower on the multi and combine that with a higher NB clock I can get to 810. That's 60 points less than your I7.

 

So, as I said earlier in the thread and I reiterate - No I5, not even the very latest Haswell refresh, is powerful enough to take on an AMD FX 8. Not when the FX is supported properly.

 

As for your I3 benchmarks? put the wheels back on the car. As I already mentioned, those games are either old or shite.

[Roddy189]

Just get the 970's and see how your system performs. I wouldn't bother switching cpu for the time being as you may not notice the difference. If you decide you want the upgrade afterwards then no dramas really. If you're not going to be doing much rendering streaming etc don't bother with an i7. I5 would be enough. Valid points on both sides of the debate and also rubbish ones. Power consumption... The power usage of the 8320 over an i5 is negligible in Real world cost. Memory controller... The differences in fps when changing ram speeds is minimal if noticeable at all.

As I said just go for it with what you already have and if you do see an issue then upgrade and let us all know what the differences in real world terms are.

Cheers.

[nokturrduk84]

 

8320 @ 5ghz.

 

 

So that's less than 10% slower than your I7. However, it cost over 50% less to buy. Now let's look at a 2700k @ 4.7ghz.

 

 

So I would like to see any one here explain to me why the I5 is ever faster than the FX 8, given it mixes it with the earlier I7s.

 

I saw Windows 7 because the likelihood is that you are using Windows 7 (or it was used) when those benchmarks were ran. As for how many cores it supports? see my analogy. You would not run a 0-60 test on a car with three wheels removed. If you want to compare CPUs you must do it properly, where both are fully supported. Otherwise it's cherry picking which is cheating.

 

As for "destroy"? less than 10% between a CPU that costs around £100, compared to the one you paid £280+ for. I don't see that as destroying in any shape or form, so you should watch your words in future. If I go harder on my FSB and lower on the multi and combine that with a higher NB clock I can get to 810. That's 60 points less than your I7.

 

So, as I said earlier in the thread and I reiterate - No I5, not even the very latest Haswell refresh, is powerful enough to take on an AMD FX 8. Not when the FX is supported properly.

 

As for your I3 benchmarks? put the wheels back on the car. As I already mentioned, those games are either old or shite.

I see you are hardcore AMD fanboy here, but it's okay. Let's have a look at your screens:

First that AMD is on 5GHz, drawing 125w, second if we overclock i7 2700k to 5GHz & run that benchmark, that's what we get: 889 with only 95w. And it's just only 4 core CPU against that ugly 8 core FX & it still breaks it bones! And considering how much power will 8350 gonna draw on 5ghz against 2700k, it's not cheap at all, it's just damn expensive. It's better to buy once little pricey & then pay less electricity bill, than whole life pay twice more.

Secondly, yes i3 beats in some games that 8core CPU & no, those games ain't old: Batman is 2011 game, F1 2013 is 2013 game, Sleeping Dogs is 2012 & Civilization V: Brave New World is 2013, so no old games here. Face the facts!

[ALXAndy]

Yeah hardcore AMD fanboy 'til I die. Where's the rolling eyes emoticon...  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Not forgetting this...

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/209051-x-8-featuring-white-lightning-an-8-core-hackintosh/

 

Which is my 8 core Ivybridge Xeon. As for AMD?

 

 

Oh yeah, and this of course, my media rig.

 

 

So let's look at that shall we? Xeon Westmere 6/12 running GTX 670 SLI. 1366.

3970x 6/12 running Titan Black SLI.

8 core Xeon running OSX.

FX 8320 @ 4.9ghz with a 7990.

Kabini media rig.

 

So that's 5 rigs in total, 3 of which are running Intel. Not only that but they're absolute top end Intels, two of which are worth closing in on a thousand pounds.

 

And you know what? the AMD rig kicks ass. I benched it vs the Xeon and it kicked the Xeon's ass, thanks to Intel's derped clock speeds and locked multi.

 

So between us? I would say I am far, far more educated than you on the capabilities of the AMD FX 8. Far, far more experienced and far more educated.

 

And I'm telling you - No Intel I5, not even Haswell or the latest refresh of Haswell can go anywhere near a FX 8, *any* FX 8, when the FX is supported properly. That may not be now but it's coming.

 

Why the fuck do you think AMD have not bothered to move on? why do they keep releasing the same CPU over and over again with higher frequencies? why does it sell?

 

I'll tell you - because there's fuck all wrong with it.

 

So again, moving from a FX 8 to an I5 would be a side grade. Yes, in older/shit/poorly coded games the I5 will win, but in anything else the FX 8 will win hands down. And, that's far more than you would believe tbh. There are tons of games either recently released or slated to come to the PC which will support the FX properly, thanks to AMD's shrewd move of managing to tuck two of their 8 core CPUs into the consoles. That is why AMD are not wasting money on pointless IPC and new CPUs, they are concentrating more on getting the ones they already have properly supported.

 

BTW, seeing as you were waving your blue willy around here's mine.

 

 

All of which is completely irrelevant of course.

[Razzaa]

Yeah hardcore AMD fanboy 'til I die. Where's the rolling eyes emoticon...  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Not forgetting this...

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/209051-x-8-featuring-white-lightning-an-8-core-hackintosh/

 

Which is my 8 core Ivybridge Xeon. As for AMD?

 

 

Oh yeah, and this of course, my media rig.

 

 

So let's look at that shall we? Xeon Westmere 6/12 running GTX 670 SLI. 1366.

3970x 6/12 running Titan Black SLI.

8 core Xeon running OSX.

FX 8320 @ 4.9ghz with a 7990.

Kabini media rig.

 

So that's 5 rigs in total, 3 of which are running Intel. Not only that but they're absolute top end Intels, two of which are worth closing in on a thousand pounds.

 

And you know what? the AMD rig kicks ass. I benched it vs the Xeon and it kicked the Xeon's ass, thanks to Intel's derped clock speeds and locked multi.

 

So between us? I would say I am far, far more educated than you on the capabilities of the AMD FX 8. Far, far more experienced and far more educated.

 

And I'm telling you - No Intel I5, not even Haswell or the latest refresh of Haswell can go anywhere near a FX 8, *any* FX 8, when the FX is supported properly. That may not be now but it's coming.

 

Why the fuck do you think AMD have not bothered to move on? why do they keep releasing the same CPU over and over again with higher frequencies? why does it sell?

 

I'll tell you - because there's fuck all wrong with it.

 

So again, moving from a FX 8 to an I5 would be a side grade. Yes, in older/shit/poorly coded games the I5 will win, but in anything else the FX 8 will win hands down. And, that's far more than you would believe tbh. There are tons of games either recently released or slated to come to the PC which will support the FX properly, thanks to AMD's shrewd move of managing to tuck two of their 8 core CPUs into the consoles. That is why AMD are not wasting money on pointless IPC and new CPUs, they are concentrating more on getting the ones they already have properly supported.

I have to agree with this guy. I would never recommend someone going from a 8350 to a i5. It just doesn't make sense price wise. That is a whole lot of money for not much of a difference in performance. I guess it all comes down to what you do with it though. Games that use 1 or 2 threads then maybe but any current title meh.

 

I went from a 4.8ghz 8350 to a 4790k and in newer games it wasn't an earth shattering performance increase. In everything else it was a noticeable difference though. Especially synthetics and single threaded games like WoW. An 83xx keeping up to a i7 in anything is just rubbish though. A 4790k eats that 8320 in Cinebench.

[ALXAndy]

I have to agree with this guy. I would never recommend someone going from a 8350 to a i5. It just doesn't make sense price wise. That is a whole lot of money for not much of a difference in performance. I guess it all comes down to what you do with it though. Games that use 1 or 2 threads then maybe but any current title meh.

 

You simply offset by clocking the shit out of the AMD. It really is that simple tbh.

[nokturrduk84]

Yeah hardcore AMD fanboy 'til I die. Where's the rolling eyes emoticon...  :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Not forgetting this...

 

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/209051-x-8-featuring-white-lightning-an-8-core-hackintosh/

 

Which is my 8 core Ivybridge Xeon. As for AMD?

 

 

Oh yeah, and this of course, my media rig.

 

 

So let's look at that shall we? Xeon Westmere 6/12 running GTX 670 SLI. 1366.

3970x 6/12 running Titan Black SLI.

8 core Xeon running OSX.

FX 8320 @ 4.9ghz with a 7990.

Kabini media rig.

 

So that's 5 rigs in total, 3 of which are running Intel. Not only that but they're absolute top end Intels, two of which are worth closing in on a thousand pounds.

 

And you know what? the AMD rig kicks ass. I benched it vs the Xeon and it kicked the Xeon's ass, thanks to Intel's derped clock speeds and locked multi.

 

So between us? I would say I am far, far more educated than you on the capabilities of the AMD FX 8. Far, far more experienced and far more educated.

 

And I'm telling you - No Intel I5, not even Haswell or the latest refresh of Haswell can go anywhere near a FX 8, *any* FX 8, when the FX is supported properly. That may not be now but it's coming.

 

Why the fuck do you think AMD have not bothered to move on? why do they keep releasing the same CPU over and over again with higher frequencies? why does it sell?

 

I'll tell you - because there's fuck all wrong with it.

 

So again, moving from a FX 8 to an I5 would be a side grade. Yes, in older/shit/poorly coded games the I5 will win, but in anything else the FX 8 will win hands down. And, that's far more than you would believe tbh. There are tons of games either recently released or slated to come to the PC which will support the FX properly, thanks to AMD's shrewd move of managing to tuck two of their 8 core CPUs into the consoles. That is why AMD are not wasting money on pointless IPC and new CPUs, they are concentrating more on getting the ones they already have properly supported.

 

BTW, seeing as you were waving your blue willy around here's mine.

 

 

All of which is completely irrelevant of course.

Lots of bullshits I just read in this post. And by the way, no, these games ain't old, it's just AMDs junk CPU which is old & can't handle normally modern games. Oh you're showing 6core i7 against 4 core i7, so smart... I came to the conclusion, that it even doesn't worth to argue with you. You are hardcore fanboy from all AMD fanboys in this forum & spreading lies & bullshits. I'm going to put you in ignore list, so I never read your BS anymore.

[ALXAndy]

Lots of bullshits I just read in this post. And by the way, no, these games ain't old, it's just AMDs junk CPU which is old & can't handle normally modern games. Oh you're showing 6core i7 against 4 core i7, so smart... I came to the conclusion, that it even doesn't worth to argue with you. You are hardcore fanboy from all AMD fanboys in this forum & spreading lies & bullshits. I'm going to put you in ignore list, so I never read your BS anymore.

 

Good for you. Oh how I love seeing some one do the Ostrich Move .